Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Why Lightroom will never be THE raw convertor as it deserves to be...  (Read 18580 times)
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2009, 07:57:40 AM »
ReplyReply

What's idiotic about it? The point is leaving the raw data in a documented format that other apps can read, not interchange of processing instructions between different apps which often have different parameters and mechanisms. If you want to get at the Capture One results in another program, just output the embedded JPEG that C1 updates. Unfortunately, you can't do that in LR, though you do see it immediately after you import a file. Other apps like Expression Media or Photo Mechanic or even Aperture will show it (in the last case though, only while you're in preview mode).
Logged

b2martin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2009, 09:57:52 AM »
ReplyReply

If ToneUp S3 can read the in camera settings for a Nikon NEF file, why can Adobe do the same?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2009, 09:59:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Because they're a bigger target for lawyers
Logged

JDClements
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2009, 10:21:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
Any other converters output directly to DNG?

DxO outputs directly to DNG and passes results to LR. The resulting DNG file is three times the size of the DNG file that LR would have produced, though. (I asked why in this thread .)

I did an experiment and altered the white balance and tint. Upon arrival in LR, the image looked just as I had it in DxO, BUT the white balance and tint numbers in LR were NOT what they were set at in DxO.
Logged

msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2009, 03:57:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: johnbeardy
What's idiotic about it? The point is leaving the raw data in a documented format that other apps can read, not interchange of processing instructions between different apps which often have different parameters and mechanisms. If you want to get at the Capture One results in another program, just output the embedded JPEG that C1 updates. Unfortunately, you can't do that in LR, though you do see it immediately after you import a file. Other apps like Expression Media or Photo Mechanic or even Aperture will show it (in the last case though, only while you're in preview mode).

John,

COne has a very 'intuitive' tab driven workflow process. You move left to right through the different tabs to process an image. The last tab is 'Process' which takes all your parametric adjustments, applies them to the RAW and creates an output file in JPEG, TIFF or DNG format. So, it's completely non-intuitive to put DNG creation on the Process tab if all it's doing is a straight DNG convert from the original RAW.

I'm not expecting the adjustments to be readable by other programs. What I would expect is the DNG contains a RAW file with my adjustments applied.
Logged
Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2009, 04:16:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
What I would expect is the DNG contains a RAW file with my adjustments applied
One can debate about where to draw the line between raw and "past raw"; for example it is a stretch to call the Canon sRaw data "raw". However, the image data after the application of user adjustments is not "raw" any more.

If the adjustments are not applied but recorded in metadata, then it is the question of the form of that recording if and how much other programs understand of it.
Logged

Gabor
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2832



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2009, 05:42:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: msbc
I'm not expecting the adjustments to be readable by other programs. What I would expect is the DNG contains a RAW file with my adjustments applied.
Maybe your intuition is being misled by a misunderstanding. You're essentially talking about creating a new mass of (adjusted) raw data from your existing raw file, and that's not what DNG is supposed to do. It's supposed to preserve in the DNG file the original raw image data, adjusted previews and thumbnails, and one or more authoring programs' rendering instructions. I believe that's exactly what C1's doing.

John
Logged

eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 08, 2009, 02:36:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I started out several years ago using Capture One (then C1) as my only RAW workflow.  Then along came Lightroom and I now know that program for RAW processing like the back of my hand and have been using it for all my RAW files, both Phase and Canon.)  This past weekend I decided to give Capture One 4.6.0 a try and familiarize myself with their workflow and also customizing the program for my use, making it user friendly to me personally.  I'm impressed with what I'm finding in Capture One Pro.  Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom.  The amount of detail Capture One is pulling out is beyond equal also.  Tonalities are smoother with less color cast problems in especially smooth areas such as sky, snow, white sand, etc.  Capture One just does a better job. with this.  Lightroom is no slouch but I think Capture One is under rated by many.  Just my two cents, Eleanor
Logged

Panopeeper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1805


« Reply #28 on: February 08, 2009, 04:02:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eleanorbrown
Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom
Have you seen this?
Logged

Gabor
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8208



WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 08, 2009, 08:56:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eleanorbrown
This past weekend I decided to give Capture One 4.6.0 a try and familiarize myself with their workflow and also customizing the program for my use, making it user friendly to me personally.  I'm impressed with what I'm finding in Capture One Pro.  Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom.  The amount of detail Capture One is pulling out is beyond equal also.  Tonalities are smoother with less color cast problems in especially smooth areas such as sky, snow, white sand, etc.  Capture One just does a better job. with this.

I am seeing the same thing with my Nikon files (both D3 and D3x) and use C1 Pro 4.6 most of the time with some bits of Raw Developper in some cases where super fine detail needs to be extracted/sharpened even better.

LR is a very convenient DAM, too bad you cannot select what Raw conversion engine you want to use for the actual conversion...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1433


WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2009, 08:41:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,
you are very right. An even bigger problem with all this is learning each and every application. They change things so fast even keeping up with any one application is biting into shooting time.
I just tested my new Canon 5DII in LR2 against a 39MKII in Phocus. Both shot at around the same aperture, both on macro lenses.
I will  process the same Canon in DPP just to see. I don't have C 1 or any other.
It is very true that Phocus has some very important lens correction that if outside Hasselblad soft you would do worse.

According to Hassy France, they have not given an SDK to Adobe. Yet they feel as probably most people with Hasselblad they really should.
Logged
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 607


« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2009, 09:25:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I have raised this many times before, and will point it out again. Adobe is applying a base level noise reduction of sorts, this cannot be disabled. The reason you are seeing other raw software pull out more fine details, is because they don't do this.

Until Adobe sit up and  recognise the issue, nothing is going to happen about it. This has gone on for a long time now..

It is a problem, esp notable at high ISO. C1 4 and other programs like Raw therapee, run rings around ACR for this type of work. All that is needed, is a simple on/off for the NR going on by default.

Thomas Knoll would do well to visit the C1 site, and RT..download the software...and then he would see how ill informed the base level NR is.

I don't think there is much wrong with the algorithm adobe use, it's that NR that is the problem. As it is, LR would be a far more potent tool, if it kicked out raws like C1 4 can..
Logged
gullevek
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2009, 02:02:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: eleanorbrown
I started out several years ago using Capture One (then C1) as my only RAW workflow.  Then along came Lightroom and I now know that program for RAW processing like the back of my hand and have been using it for all my RAW files, both Phase and Canon.)  This past weekend I decided to give Capture One 4.6.0 a try and familiarize myself with their workflow and also customizing the program for my use, making it user friendly to me personally.  I'm impressed with what I'm finding in Capture One Pro.  Without going into a lot of details, I getting extraordinary  results most particularly with the files I found difficult to process in Lightroom.  The amount of detail Capture One is pulling out is beyond equal also.  Tonalities are smoother with less color cast problems in especially smooth areas such as sky, snow, white sand, etc.  Capture One just does a better job. with this.  Lightroom is no slouch but I think Capture One is under rated by many.  Just my two cents, Eleanor

I agree with you. CO1 feels like the underdog right now. They had a very hard start with v4, a lot of features were missing (some still are) and it was horrible slow. But since 4.6 the whole thing really starts to work. And the results are just stunning.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad